Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#111

Post by kbelder »

matkoniecz wrote: post #39
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #10

What would happen if I put up a NFT for sale of something I had no part in making?

I seriously considered doing this (while clearly mentioning it!). Not sure whether NFT situation got dumb enough for this to work.

You could do it to public domain art. Maybe set yourself up a shell business, 'NFT Certification Enterprise', and offer your official NFT for each object, with a guarantee you be generating only one NFT for each object. Deceptive, but not fraudulent.

It's not very different than selling overpriced and numbered collectibles.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#112

Post by kbelder »

endisneigh wrote: post #103
vaer-k wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It totally disagree. I think it is quite equivalent. The difference is that we don't have a centralized authority to recognize valid NFTs, as we do for deeds. But if we did have a central authority, like perhaps the artist responsible for the work protected by the NFT, and if the artist made it clear and public that only the NFTs she recognizes could be considered valid proof of ownership of her works, then indeed an…

A common misunderstanding of NFTs is that they give you some level of legal rights. NFTs do not inherently give you rights. That's why a comparison with a deed is fundamentally flawed. A deed is a legal construct - inherently it gives you ownership. So even if it were sold, without the institutions notarizing the transaction it would not be a valid sale and could be easily reversed by the original owner. I could sell…

I can sell an NFT to your house just as easily as I can to your comment, and it confers exactly the same amount of legal rights.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#113

Post by smnrchrds »

GuB-42 wrote: post #94
smnrchrds wrote: post #58

Are there laws to prevent owners of culturally significant artworks, e.g. van Gogh and da Vinci paitnings, from being destroyed, and from being shipped to countries that do not have regulations against them being destroyed? It seems the free market is moving in the direction of valuing destruction of art more than the art itself. In the absence of regulations, it would be a matter of time until some investor buys up…

You can't turn a real Van Gogh into a NFT. If anything the actual painting is the real life NFT to the image that is public domain on the internet. By destroying an original you own you are just burning money. And by doing that, you will also piss off pretty much everyone on the planet, and no one will want that (digital) NFT. In fact, I wouldn't want to take that shameful NFT even if you paid me for it.

I would rather not leave it to chance. If there aren't regulations yet, they should pass some ASAP. It didn't matter how many millions of people cared about Cecil the lion; it still took just one rich asshole for him to lose his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#114

Post by endisneigh »

kbelder wrote: post #112
endisneigh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misunderstanding of NFTs is that they give you some level of legal rights. NFTs do not inherently give you rights. That's why a comparison with a deed is fundamentally flawed. A deed is a legal construct - inherently it gives you ownership. So even if it were sold, without the institutions notarizing the transaction it would not be a valid sale and could be easily reversed by the original owner. I could sell…

I can sell an NFT to your house just as easily as I can to your comment, and it confers exactly the same amount of legal rights.

Yes, exactly. You get equal rights, that is to say, nothing. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? It's unclear.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#115

Post by paxys »

flowerlad wrote: post #104
paxys wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, Linus can sell an NFT containing the word "Linux" the same way he can sell a picture of his feet or just about anything else. It is all meaningless since (1) the NFT does not grant any ownership rights or licenses and (2) Linux code is anyways available under GPLv2.

> Linux code is anyways available under GPLv2 Yes, it doesn't stop anyone from using Linux. So win-win for all.

Soo..what is this NFT then exactly? Why would someone buy a Linux NFT?

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#116

Post by dlevine »

matkoniecz wrote: post #46
dlevine wrote: post #6

This is potentially the beginning of a very interesting trend, and something I have spent some time thinking about. My sense is that owning an NFT should allow you to control access to that content (even if your choice is just to make it publicly accessible). NFT doesn't have an ACL layer built in, so this would need to be added (has anyone already done this?) One open question is whether it actually makes sense to h…

> owning an NFT should allow you to control access to that content are you aware that anyone may sell NFT for anything? I could produce and sell NFT pointing to say Walmart website. Or HN. Or Wikipedia.

Yes, and I believe that's one of the reasons why there is so much hate for NFTs on this thread. People are selling tokens for huge amounts of money that confer no rights other than being able to say that you own the NFT.

Obviously you would need to actually own the asset to be able to hand over access control as part of the NFT sale. NFTs potentially have real use cases, but the technology and infrastructure isn't mature enough to support those use cases.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#117

Post by VRay »

colinmhayes wrote: post #56
hackinthebochs wrote: post #28

The only explanation for NFTs that made sense to me is that people with an interest in the network (e.g. early investors) are bidding up some choice NFTs to make news and drive interest in their network. There is no actual market for NFTs at these prices, but that doesn't stop groups with deep pockets from pretending like there is by purchasing well known memes for eye popping amounts. If internet "celebrities" are a…

Could be money laundering related too. Buy NFTs for small sums with clean crypto, sell it to your dirty wallet for inflated sums. In order for something like that to work there needs to be plausible deniability so they also buy NFTs with clean wallets which would explain the volume. Plus the legitimate crypto speculators see these crazy numbers and jump aboard too.

I think most of these NFT contracts will give 5% of every resale back to the original creator of the contract, too. Pretty ludicrous IMO

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#118

Post by bigdollopenergy »

ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

I recently heard someone say "I'm not stupid enough to make money in this market", and I think it rings very true.

With the short squeeze speculation on stocks, the crypto run+crash and NFT's. The market is a very confusing place nowadays. You'd have to be bonkers to invest in these things on paper, but yet, lot's of people are making bank from it every day (and vice versa).

NFT is probably the most confusing of the bunch. I understand the technology and what it actually is, but I see little to no value in it. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of these NFT sales are just people buying from themselves to inflate perceived value or just money laundering. That said, it actually looks like this false hype has turned into real hype somehow and people are actually making money from this. NFT's are probably the closest thing we'll see to Tulip mania for long time, at least cryptocurrency has some (largely unrealized) utility and potential to become something widely used in the future.

In order to make lot's of money nowadays, you shouldn't ask yourself "What is actually going to make a profit and/or provide utility in the future?" but rather "What are all the stupid people going to pile in on next so i can get in and out before it crashes?".

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#119

Post by rtkwe »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #28

The only explanation for NFTs that made sense to me is that people with an interest in the network (e.g. early investors) are bidding up some choice NFTs to make news and drive interest in their network. There is no actual market for NFTs at these prices, but that doesn't stop groups with deep pockets from pretending like there is by purchasing well known memes for eye popping amounts. If internet "celebrities" are a…

The introduction of NFTs certainly spiked the price of ETH for a while but it seems the shine has worn off and the dump is in full force.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#120

Post by AlexandrB »

beforeolives wrote: post #66
ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

Right - seeing so much money thrown around with so little backing/reason/substance doesn't really motivate you to go back to your life and put in a full workweek in exchange for whatever your salary is.

There seem to be 2 economies: There's the 1% (0.1%?) economy where there is a lack of productive places to "put" money that might generate a return so people are buying up any shiny, new thing that comes along. Then there's the 99% economy where people need to buy food/clothing/shelter and money is getting increasingly tight.

It's almost as if transferring some of the (marginally useless) money from the 1% to the 99% might actually be a better investment in the future than some of these dubious "assets". But there's no NFT for that.

Post reply on HN